This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I think Dark chocolate requires a separate entry or an expansion of this section. 131.215.7.105 ( talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Abhishek
06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 69.236.87.54"Cannibalistic chocolate"? If anyone's got a cite for this, please feel free to supply it. Paul.w.bennett 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Bold textItalic text'Italic text Dark chocolate is know claimed to be "healthy" as scienctist say. Is this the truth ? Scianctist believe that this chocolate can cure diesesses and is heaklthy but to much is bad.
Well, you've probably already heard that dark chocolate is a "natural source of antioxidants." Many chocolate-based products sold in supermarkets and grocery stores tout these claims, especially Hershey's. It's good for you in moderation; chocolate bars and what-not still have calories, and, obviously, too much can make you gain weight. 71.172.239.187 05:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
As of today, which is March 24, 2007, there is a report afloat that dark chocolate has been shown in a study to promote vascular health. Here is an exerpt from the article:
Block quote
By Bill Berkrot
Sat Mar 24, 5:59 PM ET
"NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Chocoholics were given further reason to rejoice on Saturday when a small clinical study showed that dark chocolate improves the function of blood vessels.
"While the researchers cautioned against bingeing on bon bons, they said the findings of the trial were clear and called for larger such studies to confirm the results.
"'In this sample of healthy adults, dark chocolate ingestion over a short period of time was shown to significantly improve (blood vessel) function,' said Dr. Valentine Yanchou Njike of Yale Prevention Research Center, a co-investigator of the study.
"The results, presented at the annual American College of Cardiology scientific meeting in New Orleans, add to mounting evidence of the health benefits of dark chocolate."
The details of the study - or some details, as set forth in the article - aren't quoted here.
69.236.87.54 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Ira J. Ross, March 24, 2007
Comparing a 100% to a 60% Ghirardelli bar, the 100% has more iron and protein, and with less or no sugar. This is good, but dark chocolate also has more caffeine (it is not labeled, but shown on more than one study I've seen). The increased function of blood vessels could possibly be a side affect to the caffeine (which has plenty of bad side affects as well). Chocolate has less caffeine than drinks such as coffee or mountain dew, but enough to be wary of. Otherwise, dark chocolate is healthier, but too much is definitely bad. Joshuamonkey ( talk) 04:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The below taken from the ingrdiant list of "Dark Chocolate" M&Ms seems to be in conflict with the classification of chocolate? The ingrediant list for SEMISWEET CHOCOLATE is given as follows. The important point being that it has milk in it.
Chocolate, Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Skim Milk, milkfat, Lactose, ....
Please excuse me if this is not in the correct place but I believe there is an error in the chart showing US FDA guidelines for chocolate classifications. Milk chocolate is listed as greater than 30% milk solids but using the already presented reference to the FDA website (Sec. 163.130 Milk chocolate.) states: "The finished milk chocolate contains not less than 3.39 percent by weight of milkfat and not less than 12 percent by weight of total milk solids.." so I do not see where anyone got 30 from. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nryan115 ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Known fondly by millions of women around the world as the irreplacable dietary staple, chocolate has been manufactured in many shapes, forms, mixtures, and combinations.
Factories everywhere have tried in vain to alter the expectations of pristiged women, replacing dark chocolate with such substitutes as the 90% wax milk chocolates, white chocolates (that, though bearing the name have absolutely no cocoa percentage), the gummy, chewy tootsie rolls and lastly, the most dreaded, the most detested, the most disgustingly deplorable carob.
However, though temptations press in at every side, the true women have stayed true to the true chocolate. They smile when the white chocolate caremel coffee stirrers are opened under the tree on Christmas morning, but choose to stand apart - if need be, to stand alone - while the rest of the family devoure them. They sneak off to their room, and, finding the hidden stash, settle confortable to enjoy the dark mounds of delight.
When Valentine's Day comes around, they watch as the foil wrapped kisses are handed to them from friends and acquaintances. They say their thanks again and again. To one person after another they hand out their own candies. A boy their age thanks them and moves on. Soon they see a girl. They hand one to her. Her face alights, her hands tremble, and her eyes shine as she slips the delicacy into her mouth. The reward is always the same: melting, smooth, rich, delicious.
Perhaps one day the truth will be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.110.167 ( talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I recieved something called euro chocolate this easter. its a mixture of dark/milk chocolate apparently. maybe someone should add it in if they know anything about it. Evaunit ♥666♥ 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Something should probably be added on the fact that most Europeans, on tasting "Hershey process" chocolate tend to think it tastes like sour milk....-- UltraMagnus ( talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This page referenced in the article claims that Henri Nestlé invented Condensed milk, but both the condensed milk article and Gail Borden's article state Borden did. Which is it? Scottanon ( talk) 22:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The chocolate melts at a different piont — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.49.84 ( talk) 22:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Some aspects of the article have too much focus on how Americans don't know what "real" chocolate is or what it tastes like, so I am going to remove those statements as they don't actually add anything to the article or provide anything more than opinion (I will be specifically working on the Compound Chocolate section). Redrok84 ( talk) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Reference link 10, [1] is "broken". --Kektklik 10:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The health benefits of chocolate whether milk chocolate or dark chocolate with high cacao content needs to be a bit more specific and not just say that research indicates that the consumption of high cacao content chocolate may lead to improved health. That is a very broad statement and should be more focused to explain what kind of health benefits chocolate might have according to new research.
Here is an example:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=163.155 allows the use of the generic word chocolate for a vegetable oil based confection, there are also common sense exceptions for things like chocolate cake and a chocolate donuts, and they both have "prohibited" ingredients. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074446.htm expands on the use of the word chocolate as guidance for the industry.
This article needs some work, just don't have the time right now to correct it.
Skip-CCB ( talk) 04:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just finished a plate of 100% chocolate. It's bitter, not sweet, probably intended for baking and the like - but tastes great as it is in small quantities, and is refreshing like a cup af coffee. Why share this? Well, the article has:
It seems at least the percentage (99%) should be fixed. By the way, according to the package, the ingredients are cocoa solid and cocoa butter; nothing else.-- Nø ( talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Baking chocolate redirects to this article. There is just no mention of baking chocolate at all. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I found this sentence rather troubling for several minor but still important reasons, together they called out to me for a revision:
the variety that accounts for, at minimum , approximately 87.5% of the solid chocolate actually eaten in the United States alone
1) If it is a minimum, a lower bound, why approximate it?
2) 87.5% seems strangley precise for an approximation, is it 7/8? I changed it to over 85% though over 7/8 would be fine with me. Perhaps "by far the most popular" would be good enough.
3) Where does this figure come from? I added a citation needed tag.
4) Why "actually"? Are there other kinds of chocolate that are sold/gifted but not eaten?
5) Why "alone"? If it was over X tons in the United States alone it might make sense, consider other countries and the total goes up. But percentage? Is the claim that it is a higher percentage elsewhere. And the definition (and taste) of "milk chocolate" varies from country to country anyway. Gentlemath ( talk) 06:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Since there is no separate article on milk chocolate (the link redirects to this article), perhaps this would be the place to mention vegan alternatives to milk chocolate. Presumably any plant milk can be used in place of milk, but the ones I've encountered most are rice milk and soy milk. — Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I shared this news about an alleged new chocolate type on the chocolate talk page. May be worth adding to this article as well. Kerdooskis ( talk) 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is there no separate page for milk chocolate where dark chocolate and white chocolate have them? Links to "Milk chocolate" redirect here instead (such as on the main page for chocolate). Ron Stoppable ( talk) 23:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Orange chocolate redirects to this page, but this page doesn't actually mention orange chocolate at all. Was a section related to orange chocolate deleted at some point? If not, is it worth adding one? -- TheSophera ( talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I added the blond chocolate as a sub-type of the white chocolate, but I'm not sure it shouldn't be a type of its own... 94.230.92.124 ( talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Oknazevad: I've reverted this edit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a completely different rationale from your first attempt at removing it which suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, "classic British tabloid style" is absurd as it's sourced to The Times, which continues to be the UK's principal newspaper of record. Thirdly, "while the other sentence is solely sourced to a blog"...er, no the The Daily Meal is part of the same corporate group that publishes the Chicago Tribune and is WP:RS with the relevant editorial standards. Fourthly, your edit suggests a rather parochial lack of awareness of a well known and well reported European view of an American consumer product. To describe the opinion as "scare tactic" is somewhat blinkered. DeCausa ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of the complaint (which comes off as clickbait with those headlines, to be frank) it's very WP:UNDUE for this article, which is a general overview. Details like that belong at the specific milk chocolate article, not here. oknazevad ( talk) 02:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I think Dark chocolate requires a separate entry or an expansion of this section. 131.215.7.105 ( talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Abhishek
06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 69.236.87.54"Cannibalistic chocolate"? If anyone's got a cite for this, please feel free to supply it. Paul.w.bennett 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Bold textItalic text'Italic text Dark chocolate is know claimed to be "healthy" as scienctist say. Is this the truth ? Scianctist believe that this chocolate can cure diesesses and is heaklthy but to much is bad.
Well, you've probably already heard that dark chocolate is a "natural source of antioxidants." Many chocolate-based products sold in supermarkets and grocery stores tout these claims, especially Hershey's. It's good for you in moderation; chocolate bars and what-not still have calories, and, obviously, too much can make you gain weight. 71.172.239.187 05:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
As of today, which is March 24, 2007, there is a report afloat that dark chocolate has been shown in a study to promote vascular health. Here is an exerpt from the article:
Block quote
By Bill Berkrot
Sat Mar 24, 5:59 PM ET
"NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Chocoholics were given further reason to rejoice on Saturday when a small clinical study showed that dark chocolate improves the function of blood vessels.
"While the researchers cautioned against bingeing on bon bons, they said the findings of the trial were clear and called for larger such studies to confirm the results.
"'In this sample of healthy adults, dark chocolate ingestion over a short period of time was shown to significantly improve (blood vessel) function,' said Dr. Valentine Yanchou Njike of Yale Prevention Research Center, a co-investigator of the study.
"The results, presented at the annual American College of Cardiology scientific meeting in New Orleans, add to mounting evidence of the health benefits of dark chocolate."
The details of the study - or some details, as set forth in the article - aren't quoted here.
69.236.87.54 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Ira J. Ross, March 24, 2007
Comparing a 100% to a 60% Ghirardelli bar, the 100% has more iron and protein, and with less or no sugar. This is good, but dark chocolate also has more caffeine (it is not labeled, but shown on more than one study I've seen). The increased function of blood vessels could possibly be a side affect to the caffeine (which has plenty of bad side affects as well). Chocolate has less caffeine than drinks such as coffee or mountain dew, but enough to be wary of. Otherwise, dark chocolate is healthier, but too much is definitely bad. Joshuamonkey ( talk) 04:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The below taken from the ingrdiant list of "Dark Chocolate" M&Ms seems to be in conflict with the classification of chocolate? The ingrediant list for SEMISWEET CHOCOLATE is given as follows. The important point being that it has milk in it.
Chocolate, Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Skim Milk, milkfat, Lactose, ....
Please excuse me if this is not in the correct place but I believe there is an error in the chart showing US FDA guidelines for chocolate classifications. Milk chocolate is listed as greater than 30% milk solids but using the already presented reference to the FDA website (Sec. 163.130 Milk chocolate.) states: "The finished milk chocolate contains not less than 3.39 percent by weight of milkfat and not less than 12 percent by weight of total milk solids.." so I do not see where anyone got 30 from. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nryan115 ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Known fondly by millions of women around the world as the irreplacable dietary staple, chocolate has been manufactured in many shapes, forms, mixtures, and combinations.
Factories everywhere have tried in vain to alter the expectations of pristiged women, replacing dark chocolate with such substitutes as the 90% wax milk chocolates, white chocolates (that, though bearing the name have absolutely no cocoa percentage), the gummy, chewy tootsie rolls and lastly, the most dreaded, the most detested, the most disgustingly deplorable carob.
However, though temptations press in at every side, the true women have stayed true to the true chocolate. They smile when the white chocolate caremel coffee stirrers are opened under the tree on Christmas morning, but choose to stand apart - if need be, to stand alone - while the rest of the family devoure them. They sneak off to their room, and, finding the hidden stash, settle confortable to enjoy the dark mounds of delight.
When Valentine's Day comes around, they watch as the foil wrapped kisses are handed to them from friends and acquaintances. They say their thanks again and again. To one person after another they hand out their own candies. A boy their age thanks them and moves on. Soon they see a girl. They hand one to her. Her face alights, her hands tremble, and her eyes shine as she slips the delicacy into her mouth. The reward is always the same: melting, smooth, rich, delicious.
Perhaps one day the truth will be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.110.167 ( talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I recieved something called euro chocolate this easter. its a mixture of dark/milk chocolate apparently. maybe someone should add it in if they know anything about it. Evaunit ♥666♥ 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Something should probably be added on the fact that most Europeans, on tasting "Hershey process" chocolate tend to think it tastes like sour milk....-- UltraMagnus ( talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This page referenced in the article claims that Henri Nestlé invented Condensed milk, but both the condensed milk article and Gail Borden's article state Borden did. Which is it? Scottanon ( talk) 22:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The chocolate melts at a different piont — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.49.84 ( talk) 22:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Some aspects of the article have too much focus on how Americans don't know what "real" chocolate is or what it tastes like, so I am going to remove those statements as they don't actually add anything to the article or provide anything more than opinion (I will be specifically working on the Compound Chocolate section). Redrok84 ( talk) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Reference link 10, [1] is "broken". --Kektklik 10:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The health benefits of chocolate whether milk chocolate or dark chocolate with high cacao content needs to be a bit more specific and not just say that research indicates that the consumption of high cacao content chocolate may lead to improved health. That is a very broad statement and should be more focused to explain what kind of health benefits chocolate might have according to new research.
Here is an example:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=163.155 allows the use of the generic word chocolate for a vegetable oil based confection, there are also common sense exceptions for things like chocolate cake and a chocolate donuts, and they both have "prohibited" ingredients. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074446.htm expands on the use of the word chocolate as guidance for the industry.
This article needs some work, just don't have the time right now to correct it.
Skip-CCB ( talk) 04:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just finished a plate of 100% chocolate. It's bitter, not sweet, probably intended for baking and the like - but tastes great as it is in small quantities, and is refreshing like a cup af coffee. Why share this? Well, the article has:
It seems at least the percentage (99%) should be fixed. By the way, according to the package, the ingredients are cocoa solid and cocoa butter; nothing else.-- Nø ( talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Baking chocolate redirects to this article. There is just no mention of baking chocolate at all. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I found this sentence rather troubling for several minor but still important reasons, together they called out to me for a revision:
the variety that accounts for, at minimum , approximately 87.5% of the solid chocolate actually eaten in the United States alone
1) If it is a minimum, a lower bound, why approximate it?
2) 87.5% seems strangley precise for an approximation, is it 7/8? I changed it to over 85% though over 7/8 would be fine with me. Perhaps "by far the most popular" would be good enough.
3) Where does this figure come from? I added a citation needed tag.
4) Why "actually"? Are there other kinds of chocolate that are sold/gifted but not eaten?
5) Why "alone"? If it was over X tons in the United States alone it might make sense, consider other countries and the total goes up. But percentage? Is the claim that it is a higher percentage elsewhere. And the definition (and taste) of "milk chocolate" varies from country to country anyway. Gentlemath ( talk) 06:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Since there is no separate article on milk chocolate (the link redirects to this article), perhaps this would be the place to mention vegan alternatives to milk chocolate. Presumably any plant milk can be used in place of milk, but the ones I've encountered most are rice milk and soy milk. — Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I shared this news about an alleged new chocolate type on the chocolate talk page. May be worth adding to this article as well. Kerdooskis ( talk) 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is there no separate page for milk chocolate where dark chocolate and white chocolate have them? Links to "Milk chocolate" redirect here instead (such as on the main page for chocolate). Ron Stoppable ( talk) 23:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that Orange chocolate redirects to this page, but this page doesn't actually mention orange chocolate at all. Was a section related to orange chocolate deleted at some point? If not, is it worth adding one? -- TheSophera ( talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I added the blond chocolate as a sub-type of the white chocolate, but I'm not sure it shouldn't be a type of its own... 94.230.92.124 ( talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Oknazevad: I've reverted this edit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a completely different rationale from your first attempt at removing it which suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, "classic British tabloid style" is absurd as it's sourced to The Times, which continues to be the UK's principal newspaper of record. Thirdly, "while the other sentence is solely sourced to a blog"...er, no the The Daily Meal is part of the same corporate group that publishes the Chicago Tribune and is WP:RS with the relevant editorial standards. Fourthly, your edit suggests a rather parochial lack of awareness of a well known and well reported European view of an American consumer product. To describe the opinion as "scare tactic" is somewhat blinkered. DeCausa ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of the complaint (which comes off as clickbait with those headlines, to be frank) it's very WP:UNDUE for this article, which is a general overview. Details like that belong at the specific milk chocolate article, not here. oknazevad ( talk) 02:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
References